So, why not share this bounty of employment with all? Because despite all of the moral preening, for all the Trump administration’s solemn proclamations about the “dignity of work” and the economic “principles that are central to the American spirit,” these Medicaid regulations — and the thinking behind welfare administration more generally — are rarely as moral and all-embracing as their proponents would have us believe.

It’s simply impossible not to see intent in racial disparities as large as the one these Medicaid waivers would generate

Uh, this is a wonky transition. I thought she was going to propose public employment as a solution, but she just states “why not share this bounty” and never elaborates on what that entails; what other measure the administration should be taking to prove its ideals/motives are legitimate.

And saying it ties back to racism, it’s just lazy. Voting behavior yes, tribalism, oh yes, but that doesn’t mean racism is at the heart of it. That just seems like a ploy to make the opponent look as despicable as possible.

It’s especially inauthenticate, when you have a clearly non-white person there as the Administrator of the agency in question.

Your mistake is assuming that racism is fundamentally about psychology, rather than about institutional and real-world effects. Even putting aside whether there is psychological racism going on here (and who are we kidding, of course there is), it would still be the case that, even if everyone involved in this were the “least racist ever,” as Trump claims, it would still be racist in its institutional effects. That is: if you have a law that disproportionately favors a privileged group over a minority group, this is racist, regardless of any psychological motives or intent.

Your mistake is assuming that racism is fundamentally about psychology, rather than about institutional and real-world effects.

If you’re trying to implicate the character of people, which she’s clearly doing through stating:

“GOP-controlled states have been quietly crafting waivers that would end up shielding rural, white residents”

“Who deserves assistance, no strings attached? As it turns out, it’s those who look, think and vote like me.”

Progressives rely on racial polemics, because they have no other high-resolution way to ask how disparities come about.

They have a hammer; everything is a nail. That’s their approach, and it’s so disappointing. They could see more here if they tried, and what’s frustrating in this case is that she comes close.

If anything, this is about political identity, and class. Race isn’t the primary factor here anymore than it is with gerrymandering; everyone understands that, and that’s just as much of an “institutional” issue.

That is: if you have a law that disproportionately favors a privileged group over a minority group

And I can point out that it disproportionally favors geo-location, rural vs urban, and it’s no less true or relevant.

Given blacks in rural areas will benefit just as much as Whites there, it seems geo-location is if anything the more relevant contrast.

Eh, it doesn’t matter. If you craft a law that disproportionately favors the dominate racial group over the minority racial group, then it’s racist. It doesn’t matter if there are other considerations involved. It also doesn’t matter what the “primary factor” is.

Eh, it doesn’t matter. If you craft a law that disproportionately favors the dominate racial group over the minority racial group, then it’s racist. It doesn’t matter if there are other considerations involved.

It brings on the question why Race is at all a central factor, when it clearly isn’t the criteria being targeted.

It’s location & voting behavior. Blacks who vote red (and there’s plenty of Black-dominate counties in the South who do), also get the benefit.

Again, it’s just an attempt to make the administration look more despicable, not an honest evaluation of what is going on. An honest evaluation, we keep it focused on class and political identity, which are far more germane.

It’s not “blacks”, it’s poor people, in urban areas, who vote blue. Poor whites, Indians, Cubans, and other typically “Red” racial blocs who fall under the same criteria are just as much victims.

That can all be true, and the policy is still racist. The policy could be crafted 100% by black politicians, without a racist bone in their bodies, because of a rural vs urban bias, or because of tribal political loyalties, and, if the law favors the dominate (white) racial group over the minority (black) racial group, then it’s still a racist law. Psychology isn’t the most fundamental fact of racism. Psychological racism is a sufficient but not necessary condition for existential racism.

That can all be true, and the policy is still racist. The policy could be crafted 100% by black politicians,

No, it isn’t racist, it’s classicist. It’s targeting people at the bottom, who aren’t well integrated into the social strata, and who can’t properly represent themselves before the powers at be. Racial identity is incidental, because anyone in that criteria can be a victim.

It’s the focus on race that keeps the true problem ignored.

When cities write policies that target the homeless, they aren’t targeting minorities, even if minorities are disproportional making up the homeless. They’re targeting poor people who don’t have houses, who make the city look seedy.

The policy isn’t racist, it’s classicist. That’s the identity, if anything, being marginalized.

No, “classicist” is an academic who studies classic works of literature, philosophy, and art.

Look man, your position is awful.

Your position is inaccurate, you know it is, this is about class disparities (classism), anyone who is poor can be a victim.

That’s why blacks are targeted in black run cities, because they’re poor. The City leadership overvalues it’s own decision making capability in dealing with it, and they end up doing superficial things, policies that ignore the actual underlying issues, and simply sweep people & circumstances under the table when they’re inconvenient.

There is a true power disparity, and it’s built around your class. How educated you are, your income, your ability to articulate & fight for yourself.

I agree with everything you said about classism. But your refusal to face the corresponding problem of racism that black people are facing every day renders your politics morally compromised.

Also, my argument is not only accurate, but trivially obvious. A law that disproportionately favors the dominate racial group over the minority racial group is racist, regardless of any other factors or original intent.

I agree with everything you said about classism. But your refusal to face the corresponding problem of racism that black people are facing every day renders your politics morally compromised.

It isn’t, because Latin American who weren’t here 40 years ago, get the same treatment today.

As it’s not because we’re “rascist”, as there’s a large body of well-integrated latin Americans in this country, it’s because those Latins are poor & partly illegal.

THINK Anderson, you likely know about Public Choice Theory, you know how Government structures marginalize the people they “serve” in incidental ways; which they get away with, because power in the relationship is unequal.

Because bureaucracies are naturally kleptocratic, and when any mere mortal makes the lives of these bureaucrats difficult, they find ways to marginalize them unless said people have the capital to spare to bring broader attention to their plight.

This applies to schools, to regulatory bodies, and the Police. Public Choice theory impacts them all.

Also, my argument is not only accurate, but trivially obvious. A law that disproportionately favors the dominate racial group over the minority racial group is racist,

Yet it also disproportionally favors racial groups who are well integrated, like Asians & Indians, and people who don’t live in Urban areas, regardless of racial identity.

It means your critique is low-resolution, you’re not identifying a driver for this treatment, which means you’re also not bringing attention to solutions, when it’s not as if you couldn’t.

I think racism is the driving factor. My point is that, even if it isn’t, a law can still be racist in its effects.

Let’s assume you’re correct and racism is not a motivating factor at all in any of these policies (which I think is an absurd assumption, but let’s go with it). The motivating factor (cause) in any problem is, you’re right, important. But understanding the effects is also important (e.g. if an effect is racist in outcomes). This is true both morally, and in terms of coming up with any socially just solution.

Mind explaining to those of us who are “unenlightened” what “social justice” is? As far as I can tell, it’s forcing people to BEHAVE as YOU would like them to behave, using the force of law to do so when YOU decide force is required, which is precisely why we cut our bonds with England in the 18th Century.

This is the problem with this “conversation”. The left considers any law which does not have equal statistical effect on all racial groups to be “racist” regardless of the intent or merits of the law. They want to use this word in this non-standard way but still retain the social stigma associated with it. Laws which have race neutral effects not always possible or desirable. Consider Obama’s “Promise Program” which facilitated at least one mass shooting in Florida.

Detroit, one of the two cities named in this article, is the poster child of the Laffer Curve; what happens when you keep raising taxes? Tax revenue declines; as does your tax base.

It’s also the poster child of white elephant infrastructure, partly funded by Federal Grants which encourage them to waste money.

It’s also a poster child of poor regulation & not being self-aware about it, as Operation Compliance demonstrated.

It’s also the poster child of Capital Flight; another consequence of the Taxes. And it was something they could have avoided, as 2/3 of their factories either went to somewhere else in America, or to 1st world European countries.

They’re being screwed, by bad social ideas, maldaptive incentives, and self-serving institutions.

Your mistake is assuming that racism is fundamentally about psychology, rather than about institutional and real-world effects.

Hogwash!

By your “logic,” a policy is “racist” if a minority group (as opposed to whites, who apparently can’t be racially slighted because, well, just because) receives one less molecule of benefit per capita.

I spent about 10 minutes trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and figure out what you were on about. But I can’t for the life of me figure out what “black run cities” have to do with virtually all-white state GOP parties crafting work requirement waivers that overwhelmingly benefit white people.

Much of the rest of your post just seems like a soft variation of an either-or fallacy: because they are poorly served by bad left-wing ideas, there can’t also be a problem of racism. But of course, both can be (and are) true. I’m trying to figure out, for example, what “maldaptive incentives” has to do with rampant murder of innocent black men by state goons.

One can only wonder why you don’t seem all that concerned by the rampant murder of innocent black men by black goons–which outstrip the murders of innocent black men by “state goons” by about 10,000 to 1. Seems like a reverse racist attitude to me. That being that the deaths of innocent black men by “state goons,” as exceedingly rare as that is, is somehow more important than the overwhelming instances of murder of innocent black men by other black men.